Netflix And Chill: Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves (1991)

There are many things to remember about Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, things that help you to forget other aspects of it. You probably remember Alan Rickman stealing most of the movie. You should remember the monster hit song from Bryan Adams. There's the "arrow-cam" shots. And, for better or worse, Kevin Costner in the lead role. You may well remember all of the fun you had with it, intentional or not, but you might forget what a slog it can be at times, the wildly varying quality of the acting, and how it generally fails in any attempt to be a proper swashbuckling action flick for modern audiences.

Both terrible and fantastic in equal measure, Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves is a film I hadn't revisited since owning it on VHS. It's one that kept randomly popping into my head though, especially when discussing Alan Rickman with a work colleague and trying to deliver amusing impressions of his iconic cinematic villain roles. I kept wondering if it was actually any good, particularly when I wasn't too won over by it back when that song had spent months dominating the British music charts.

The plot is secondary to the stars and the set-pieces. Everyone knows a bit about Robin Hood, especially if they have seen the classic Errol Flynn movie, or the animated Disney flick. He robbed from the rich to give to the poor, and he was the enemy of the greedy and conniving Sheriff Of Nottingham (played here by Rickman, of course). He had a band of merry men, and he had some chemistry with a woman named Marian (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio embodying her this time around). 

Written by Pen Densham and John Watson, two people with relatively limited experience (their previous film being one I have long wanted to see, Upworld AKA A Gnome Named Gnorm), and directed by Kevin Reynolds, this is a blockbuster that seems to have become successful through sheer force of will. You have to ignore some of the dodgy accents, you have to just grin while groaning at some of the dialogue (especially the lines uttered by Duncan, played by Walter Sparrow, who could just as easily slot into place in a Monty Python film), and you have to be patient during any scenes that fill time in between the stars being stars.

Costner isn't the best choice for the main role, but he somehow does enough to show why he gained his movie star status. The film belongs to Rickman, thankfully, but not at the expense of our hero, who benefits from his more laidback style being juxtaposed against the brilliant pantomime villain. Mastrantonio does a decent job in a role that tries to balance out the strength of the character with the need to have her in peril, and there's a lot of fun to be had with Morgan Freeman, Nick Brimble, and Mike McShane, the latter two playing Little John and Friar Tuck, respectively. Christian Slater stands out for being miscast in the role of Will Scarlett, but he tries, Michael Wincott is a very good Guy Of Gisborne, and you also get screentime for Geraldine McEwan, Brian Blessed, and a couple of star cameos.

Despite the flaws, and an overly earnest approach to many scenes is one of them, it's easy to see why many can love this. It's a fantastic blockbuster that seems to fall in line with what Costner loves to do: old-fashioned entertainment with just the right blend of drama, romance, and spectacle. You can sneer at it if you like, and I'm sure many do, but it makes up for being a bit of a mess by trying hard at every turn to be a hugely entertaining mess. I may not have loved it back when it was first released, but I cannot help having a soft spot for it now.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Waterworld (1995)

If there was one movie that came to symbolise the excess, and potential waste, of blockbuster movie productions of the 1990s, it was Waterworld. Supplying cinema fans with plenty of gossip before we'd even seen one main scene, it was the film that caused more strife between star Kevin Costner and director Kevin Reynolds, the film that had the biggest budget of all time (until James Cameron gave us Titanic, which then opened the floodgates, no pun intended, for budgets to go up and up and up), and the film that allowed everyone to (unfairly, in my view) knock Costner down a peg or two.

The sad thing is that the film itself, without taking everything else into consideration, is actually pretty good. I'd go so far as to call it a great action adventure. But that's easy to forget when the final product has been long overshadowed by that troubled reputation.

The plot is pretty simple. Costner plays the Mariner, a lone traveller on an Earth that has long been covered in a deluge of water, so much so that any notion of dry land is nothing more than a legend. But one little girl (Enola, played by Tina Majorino) may have the location of dry land, in the form of a skin tattoo, and she ends up on the Mariner's boat, along with her guardian, Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn). This makes them of interest to a marauding gang, the Smokers, and their leader, Deacon (Dennis Hopper).

I thought long and hard about this, I think long and hard about every statement I make in my reviews (even if it doesn't appear that way), and I stand by the fact that Waterworld MAY be a contender for the best physically-realised movie environment onscreen. A lot of the screentime is taken up by our leads floating on the water, true, but there's an astonishing atoll set that is the focus of the action in the opening third of the film, fantastic design work on the main vehicle that belongs to Costner's character, and a wonderful reappropriation of the Exxon Valdez as a main HQ for the villains. There's not one moment in this movie that takes you out of it, in terms of the look and the production design, no matter how silly some of the plotting may be.

The script, by Peter Rader and David Twohy, may be little more than Mad Max on water, but that's not a bad thing to aim for when you're out to deliver some post-apocalyptic, stunt-filled, action. And everything is directed well by whichever Kevin you want to give the most credit to. This may have been the most expensive movie of all time, for a while, but you have to admit that you can see pretty much every dollar onscreen (well . . . apart from the thousands of dollars that it cost for every night that Costner stayed in his villa, which also had a chef and butler, apparently). Every set-piece is grand and impressive, without tipping over into the overdone and tiresome style we so often see in modern movies that have no limits on the spectacles they can provide, thanks to the computer tools at their disposal.

None of the cast members are doing their best work, but neither are they doing any of their worst. Costner does the strong and silent type well, Tripplehorn does as much as she can while not being given a lot to do, and Hopper is just about as fun a villain as you could wish for in this kind of fare (a scene with him trying out a replacement eye still makes me laugh harder than many big gags in comedy films). Majorino acts well opposite the adults, Michael Jeter is fun in a small role, and Gerard Murphy is another crafty villain in league with Hopper and co. The list of people in much smaller roles also includes a number of familiar faces: Leonardo Cimino, Robert Joy, Jack Black, Kim Coates, and one or two others.

Does it have flaws? It sure does. It's overlong, even in the shortest version available, it often misses the mark when it comes to the moments that aren't full of action, the computer effects, when on display, are mid-90s computer effects, and the ending is, well, it's a bit anti-climactic. But none of that is enough to spoil a movie that aims to provide viewers with a thrilling cinematic adventure. If you haven't seen it, or haven't seen it in years, then do check it out.  Maybe you'll agree with my opinion of it. Maybe enough time has passed, and the tide has turned for Waterworld.

8/10

You can buy this fantastic set here.

Red Dawn (1984)

Red Dawn is another film from the '80s that many people view with fondness. It could be to do with the ridiculously entertaining plot - America is invaded and a bunch of teens become formidable guerrilla warriors. It could be to do with the cast, which includes a lot of great youngsters with support from dependable old hands such as Harry Dean Stanton, Ben Johnson and Powers Boothe. Or it could just be the very, well, eighties-ness of it all. Having somehow never seen the film until now, I don't have the rosy tint of nostalgia to cloud my judgment. I can still enjoy Red Dawn and I can still see why so many would have enjoyed it more when it was released in 1984 but I can also see the many negative points.

Starting off with a laughable amount of title cards that get viewers up to speed, Red Dawn quickly gets the action started when a bunch of American schoolkids are alarmed, to say the least, by invading Soviet forces.
They head for the hills, at first just thinking of survival but soon coming up with tactics to use in a concerted effort to fight back.

It's, essentially, a war movie set on American soil with lots of young heartthrobs in the cast. Patrick Swayze is the older, brave member of the group while the likes of C. Thomas Howell, Charlie Sheen, Jennifer Grey, Lea Thompson, Darren Dalton and Brad Savage look up to him. Then there are those old hands I already mentioned in supporting roles, as well as Lane Smith, Ron O'Neal and Frank McRae, though the latter is onscreen for merely a minute or so.

This may not be the finest film from director John Milius but it's worth a watch for a number of reasons. First of all, there's the subject matter. Yes, it's dumb and gung-ho for most of the runtime but there are also a surprising number of dark moments that aren't expected in a film about teen freedom fighters. Secondly, the cast. Of course. Thirdly, this is an early film in the interesting career of Kevin Reynolds. I like Kevin Reynolds (oh yes, I liked Waterworld - a lot) and the movies that he's involved with always tend to have enough sheer entertainment in the mix to keep me happy throughout.

Red Dawn is a film that was, undoubtedly, best viewed in 1984 but you can still watch it now and, after checking that nobody else can see you, allow yourself to pump your fist in the air and shout "Go Wolverines!".

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews